Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres

As part of a multi-centred study evaluating a communication skills training model for clinicians, we collected information preferences using an adaptation of Cassileth's Information Needs questionnaire from a heterogeneous sample of 2331 patients. Results showed that 87% (2027) wanted all possible information, both good and bad news and 98% (2203) preferred to know whether or not their illness was cancer. Cross tabulation of responses revealed no significant differences in information preferences for tumour site or treatment aims but did show an effect of age and sex. The few 58/440 (13.2%) patients who stated that in general they preferred to leave disclosure of details up to the doctor, tended to be older patients more than 70 years of age (chi square = 26.01, df = 2, P< 0.0001), although paradoxically they still wanted to know certain specific details. In comparison to men women preferred to know the specific name of the illness (chi square = 4.9, df = 1, P< 0.02) and what were all the possible treatments (chi square = 8.26, df = 1, P< 0.004). The results from this very large sample provide conclusive evidence that the vast majority of patients with cancer want a great deal of specific information concerning their illness and treatment. Failure to disclose such information on the grounds that significant numbers of patients prefer not to know is untenable.

Psychiatric morbidity and its recognition by doctors in patients with cancer

Psychiatric morbidity in patients with cancer is high and without appropriate treatment unremitting. We assessed the ability of 143 doctors to establish the psychological status of 2297 patients during outpatient consultations in 34 cancer centres and hospitals in the UK. Prior to seeing the doctor, consenting patients completed a short self-report questionnaire (GHQ12), designed for the psychological screening of large populations. At the end of the consultation, doctors completed visual analogue scales rating patients' distress. 837/2297 (36.4%) patients had GHQ scores suggestive of psychiatric morbidity. The doctors' sensitivity (true positive rate) was 28.87% (SD 25.29), specificity (true negative rate) 84.79% (SD 17.44). The misclassification rate was 34.7% (SD 13.79) meaning that for 797 patients the wrong assessment was probably made. These data show that much of the probable psychiatric morbidity experienced by patients with cancer goes unrecognized and therefore untreated. Doctors need communication skills training to elicit problems during consultations. Appropriate referrals to psychological services are necessary when patients requiring help are identified and ought to be an integral part of cancer care.

Effective communication skills are the key to good cancer care

Communication within oncology is a core clinical skill but one in which few oncologists or specialist cancer nurses have received much formal training. Inadequate communication may cause much distress for patients and their families, who often want considerably more information than is usually provided. Many patients leave consultations unsure about the diagnosis and prognosis, confused about the meaning of--and need for--further diagnostic tests, unclear about the management plan and uncertain about the true therapeutic intent of treatment. Additionally, communication difficulties may impede the recruitment of patients to clinical trials, delaying the introduction of efficacious new treatments into clinics. Lack of effective communication between specialists and departments can also cause confusion and a loss of confidence amongst the team. Oncologists themselves acknowledge that insufficient training in communication and management skills is a major factor contributing to their own stress, lack of job satisfaction and emotional burnout. Consequently, over the past few years there have been several initiatives aimed at improving basic communication skills training for healthcare professionals in the cancer field. In this paper, some of the issues that influence communication within an oncology setting, and ultimately affect patient care, are discussed.

A 3-year prospective study of the effects of adjuvant treatments on cognition in women with early stage breast cancer

The neuropsychological performance of 85 women with early stage breast cancer scheduled for chemotherapy, 43 women scheduled for endocrine therapy and/or radiotherapy and 49 healthy control subjects was assessed at baseline (T1), postchemotherapy (or 6 months) (T2) and at 18 months (T3). Repeated measures analysis found no significant interactions or main effect of group after controlling for age and intelligence. Using a calculation to examine performance at an individual level, reliable decline on multiple tasks was seen in 20% of chemotherapy patients, 26% of nonchemotherapy patients and 18% of controls at T2 (18%, 14 and 11%, respectively, at T3). Patients who had experienced a treatment-induced menopause were more likely to show reliable decline on multiple measures at T2 (OR=2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.823–8.266 P=0.086). Psychological distress, quality of life measures and self-reported cognitive failures did not impact on objective tests of cognitive function, but were significantly associated with each other. The results show that a few women experienced objective measurable change in their concentration and memory following standard adjuvant therapy, but the majority were either unaffected or even improve over time.

Enduring impact of communication skills training: results of a 12-month follow-up

The efficacy of a communication skills training programme was shown through a randomised trial. Oncologists (N=160) from 34 cancer centres were allocated to written feedback plus course; course alone; written feedback alone or control. Each clinician had 6 – 10 interviews with patients videotaped at baseline and 3 months postintervention. Analysis of videotapes revealed improvements in the communication skills of clinicians randomised to training (n=80) compared with others (n=80). A 12-month follow-up assessment is reported here. Robust Poisson conditional analyses of counts of changes in communication behaviours revealed no demonstrable attrition in those who had shown improvement previously, including fewer leading questions, appropriate use of focused and open-ended questions and responses to patient cues. Additional skills, not apparent at 3 months, were now evident; the estimated effect sizes corresponded to 81% fewer interruptions (P=0.001) and increased summarising of information to 38% (P=0.038). However, expressions of empathy (54%, P=0.001) declined. The overall results show that 12 – 15 months postintervention, clinicians had integrated key communication skills into clinical practice and were applying others. This is the first RCT to show an enduring effect of communication skills training with transfer into the clinic.

Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy

This paper reports on the reasons why patients agreed to or declined entry into randomized trials of cancer following discussions conducted by clinicians in both District General and University Hospitals. Two hundred and four patients completed a 16-item questionnaire following the consultation, of these 112 (55%) were women with breast cancer. Overall results showed that 147 (72.1%) patients accepted entry to a randomized clinical trial (RCT). The main reasons nominated for participating in a trial were that 'others will benefit' (23.1%) and 'trust in the doctor' (21.1%). One of the main reasons for declining trial entry was that patients were 'worried about randomization' (19.6%). There was a significantly higher acceptance rate for trials providing active treatment in every arm 98 (80.6%) compared with those trials with a no treatment arm 46 (60.5%), chi2 test P= 0.003. The study outlines a number of factors that appear to influence a patient's decision to accept or decline entry into an RCT of cancer therapy. An important factor is whether or not the trial offers active treatment in all arms of the study. Communication that promotes trust and confidence in the doctor is also a powerful motivating influence.

The effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on cognition in women with breast cancer--preliminary results of an observational longitudinal study

Several studies have reported that chemotherapy-treated patients have impaired cognition function relative to control groups. We are conducting a longitudinal study with cognitive assessments at baseline, 6 and 18 months. A planned preliminary analysis of data from 50 chemotherapy patients and 43 healthy controls at baseline and post-treatment found a significant group by time interaction on three measures of verbal and working memory. Chemotherapy patients were more likely to show cognitive decline than controls (OR 2.25). Patients were significantly more likely to have GHQ(12) scores indicative of possible psychological morbidity and showed significant increases in endocrine symptoms and fatigue post-treatment however neither GHQ(12) nor quality-of-life variables were related to cognitive performance.

Patients' preferences for subcutaneous trastuzumab versus conventional intravenous infusion for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of 488 patients in the international, randomized, two-cohort PrefHer study

BACKGROUND

Patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) preferred subcutaneous (s.c.) trastuzumab, delivered via single-use injection device (SID), over the intravenous (i.v.) formulation (Cohort 1 of the PrefHer study: NCT01401166). Here, we report patient preference, healthcare professional satisfaction, and safety data pooled from Cohort 1 and also Cohort 2, where s.c. trastuzumab was delivered via hand-held syringe.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive four adjuvant cycles of 600 mg fixed-dose s.c. trastuzumab followed by four cycles of standard i.v. trastuzumab, or vice versa. The primary endpoint was overall preference proportions for s.c. or i.v., assessed by patient interviews in the evaluable ITT population.

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients were randomized to receive s.c. followed by i.v. and 243 received i.v. followed by s.c. (evaluable ITT populations: 235 and 232 patients, respectively). s.c. was preferred by 415/467 [88.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 85.7-91.6; P < 0.0001; two-sided test against null hypothesis of 65% s.c. preference]; 45/467 preferred i.v. (9.6%; 95% CI 7-13); 7/467 indicated no preference (1.5%; 95% CI 1-3). Clinician-reported adverse events occurred in 292/479 (61.0%) and 245/478 (51.3%) patients during the pooled s.c. and i.v. periods, respectively (P < 0.05; 2 × 2 χ(2)); 16 patients (3.3%) in each period experienced grade 3 events; none were grade 4/5.

CONCLUSIONS

PrefHer revealed compelling and consistent patient preferences for s.c. over i.v. trastuzumab, regardless of SID or hand-held syringe delivery. s.c. was well tolerated and safety was consistent with previous reports, including the HannaH study (NCT00950300). No new safety signals were identified compared with the known i.v. profile in EBC. PrefHer and HannaH confirm that s.c. trastuzumab is a validated and preferred option over i.v. for improving patients' care in HER2-positive breast cancer.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01401166.

Attitudes of patients to randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy

The aim of this study was to test an instrument which might be useful for doctors in explaining the randomisation procedure to an individual patient. The sample comprised 323 patients with cancer attending for out-patient appointments and/or chemotherapy treatment in two major cancer centres in the U.K. 315 patients completed a self-report questionnaire--The Attitudes to Randomised Trials Questionnaire (ARTQ). The results show that the majority of subjects 287 (91.1%) believe that patients should be asked to take part in medical research, but only 242 (76.8%) would be prepared to take part in a study comparing two treatments. If treatment was randomised, only 141 (44.8%) would agree to participate. When given further information about the randomisation procedure, 119 (68.4%) of the 174 (55.2%) who initially said 'no' to randomisation or who were unsure, would change their minds and take part in a trial. The ARTQ discriminated between three categories of patient with the following prevailing attitudes: (a) those who seem comfortable with the concept of randomisation; (b) those with some concerns, who with fuller explanation are prepared to consider randomisation; and (c) those firmly against randomisation and participation in trials whatever information is provided. Prior knowledge of patients' attitudes might assist communication about trials and encourage more doctors to approach eligible patients.

ARIX: a randomised trial of acupuncture v oral care sessions in patients with chronic xerostomia following treatment of head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Radiation treatment of head and neck cancer can cause chronic xerostomia which impairs patients' quality of life. The study reported here examined the efficacy of acupuncture in alleviating xerostomia symptoms especially dry mouth.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 145 patients with chronic radiation-induced xerostomia >18 months after treatments were recruited from seven UK cancer centres. The study employed a randomised crossover design with participants receiving two group sessions of oral care education and eight of acupuncture using standardised methods. Patient-reported outcome (PROs) measures were completed at baseline and weeks 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21. The primary outcome was improvement in dry mouth.

OBJECTIVE

saliva measurements were also carried out.

RESULTS

Acupuncture compared with oral care, produced significant reductions in patient reports of severe dry mouth (OR = 2.01, P = 0.031) sticky saliva (OR = 1.67, P = 0.048), needing to sip fluids to swallow food (OR = 2.08, P = 0.011) and in waking up at night to drink (OR = 1.71, P = 0.013). There were no significant changes in either stimulated or unstimulated saliva measurements over time.

CONCLUSION

Eight sessions of weekly group acupuncture compared with group oral care education provide significantly better relief of symptoms in patients suffering from chronic radiation-induced xerostomia.

Drivers and barriers to patient participation in RCTs

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of patients into randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is essential for treatment evaluation. Appreciation of the barriers and drivers towards participation is important for trial design, communication and information provision.

METHOD

As part of an intervention to facilitate effective multidisciplinary team communication about RCTs, cancer patients completed two study-specific questionnaires following trial discussions. One questionnaire examined reasons why patients accepted or declined trial entry, the other perceptions about their health-care professionals' (HCPs) information giving.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were completed by 74% (358/486) of patients approached; of these 81% (291/358) had joined an RCT, 16% (56/358) had declined and 3% (11/358) were undecided. Trial participation status of the 128 patients not returning questionnaires is unknown. Trial acceptance was not dependent on disease stage, tumour type, sex or age. Satisfaction with trial information and HCPs' communication was generally very good, irrespective of participation decisions. The primary reason given for trial acceptance was altruism (40%; 110/275), and for declining, trust in the doctor (28%; 12/43). Decliners preferred doctors to choose their treatment rather than be randomised (54% vs 39%; P<0.027). Acceptors were more likely to perceive doctors as wanting them to join trials (54% vs 30%; P<0.001). Trial type, that is, standard treatment vs novel or different durations of treatment, also influenced acceptance rates.

CONCLUSION

The drivers and barriers to trial participation are partly related to trial design. Unease about randomisation and impact of duration on treatment efficacy are barriers for some. Altruism and HCPs' perceived attitudes are powerful influencing factors.

Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: evaluation of a Cancer Research UK training programme

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a training intervention aimed at improving healthcare professionals' communication with cancer patients about randomised clinical trials.

DESIGN

Before and after evaluation of training programme.

SETTING

Members of the National Cancer Research Network, Scottish Trials Network, and the Welsh Cancer Trials Network.

PARTICIPANTS

101 healthcare professionals (33 clinicians and 68 research nurses).

INTERVENTION

Four modules delivered by a trained facilitator using videotapes and interactive exercises to cover general issues about discussing randomised clinical trials with patients, problems specific to adjuvant trials, trials with palliation as the goal, and trials where patients had a strong preference for one treatment arm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Before and after the intervention, participants were videotaped discussing a trial with an actor portraying a patient. These consultations were assessed for presence of information required by good clinical practice guidelines. The actor patients gave an assessment after each interview. Participants reported their self confidence about key aspects of trial discussion.

RESULTS

Analysis of the videotaped consultations showed that, after intervention, significantly more participants displayed key communication behaviours such as explaining randomisation (69 v 81, odds ratio 2.33, P = 0.033), checking patients' understanding (11 v 31, odds ratio 3.22, P = 0.002), and discussing standard treatment (73 v 88, odds ratio 4.75, P = 0.005) and side effects (69 v 85, odds ratio 3.29, P = 0.006). Participants' self confidence increased significantly (P < 0.001) across all areas. Actor patients' ratings of participants' communication showed significant improvements for 12/15 key items.

CONCLUSION

This intensive 8 hour intervention significantly improved participants' confidence and competence when communicating about randomised clinical trials.

The informational roles and psychological health of members of 10 oncology multidisciplinary teams in the UK

We report here the different roles undertaken by the members of 10 multidisciplinary cancer teams in conveying information to patients during their care. Team members completed an Informational Roles Questionnaire measuring an individual's perception of their major role and that of their colleagues in giving information to patients. They also completed two standard psychological health measures, the General Health Questionnaire and Maslach Burnout Inventory. The information giving roles of the surgeon, oncologist, radiologist and clinical nurse specialist were well recognised by their colleagues; however, other team members' roles were more ambiguous and less well understood. The clinical nurse specialist provided the broadest information coverage for patients. Few professional groups regularly informed patients about clinical trials and family history and the clinical nurse specialist was often the only person to deal with patients' sexual well being, consequently these areas are likely to receive poor coverage. Probable psychiatric morbidity (GHQ> or =4) in teams ranged from 5 to 27%. High levels of emotional exhaustion were particularly apparent in team leaders and nurses and feelings of low levels of personal accomplishment were prevalent in the histopathologists and radiologists. Putative benefits to patients and healthcare professionals from multidisciplinary team working may not be realised without investment in team training.

Reasons given by patients for participating, or not, in Phase 1 cancer trials

BACKGROUND

Communication with patients contemplating Phase 1 cancer trial participation can be challenging. Controversy exists as to whether they are provided with sufficient information to give genuinely informed consent. We present data examining the reasons patients gave for trial entry.

METHOD

Following discussions with oncologists about Phase 1 trials, participants completed a 19-item study specific 'accept or decline measure' exploring hope, expectations of benefit, altruism, concerns, and general perceptions of the trial information. They also completed 2 standardised questionnaires measuring psychological morbidity and predisposition towards optimism.

RESULTS

Forty patients completed the study questionnaires. Patients were generally optimistic with few concerns about the experimental nature of Phase 1 trials. Most 36/40 (90%) consented to trial entry. Fifty-one percent thought the trial was the only treatment option available. The four main reasons for trial entry were: expectation of some medical benefit (21%); trial the best available option (21%); to maintain hope (15%) and to help with research (13%). Only one patient gave altruism as their main reason for trial participation.

CONCLUSION

Patients considering Phase 1 trials may be a self-selected group with optimistic expectations of personal benefit driving trial entry rather than altruism. Achieving genuinely informed consent and avoidance of therapeutic misconceptions in such patients may be difficult.

Results of an intervention study to improve communication about randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy

We report results from an intervention study to improve communication during consultations about randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy. Patients, eligible for a trial, completed questionnaires about information preferences and attitudes to trials prior to seeing their doctors, who were either shown these questionnaires (intervention) or not (control). Fifteen doctors participated and invited 265 patients to join one of 40 different randomised clinical trials. Most patients (77.4%) agreed to trial entry and this was predicted by the Patient's Attitudes to Trials questionnaire with an 80.4% accuracy. Accrual, length of consultation, doctor and patient satisfaction were not associated with the intervention. Further research to explore the potential use of written interventions to facilitate communication and accrual to randomised clinical trials is recommended.

Current concepts of communication skills training in oncology

Too many patients leave their consultations with insufficient understanding about their diagnosis, prognosis, the need for further diagnostic tests, the management plans, or the therapeutic intent of treatment. This situation is not entirely due to paternalism or a lack of awareness that patients worldwide desire more information, but rather a reflection of the dismal communication skills training that most healthcare professionals receive. There have been many developments aimed at rectifying this situation, but there are still too few publications available demonstrating efficacy. Nevertheless, evidence shows that communication skills can be taught and that if taught well then the impact endures into the clinic. This chapter looks at some of the history of good evidence-based interventions to improve communication and makes a plea for more research-based evidence for improved patient outcomes following training. Unless attention and resources are given to help healthcare professionals in this core clinical skill then we will never be able to help patients and their families take an informed and educated role in their own cancer care.

Describing randomisation: patients' and the public's preferences compared with clinicians' practice

Explaining the concept of randomisation in simple terms to patients during the discussion of randomised clinical trials can be a difficult task for many health care professionals. We report the results of a questionnaire-based survey, using seven descriptions of randomisation taken from Corbett's study. We examined the preferences of the general public and patients towards the descriptions and compared the results with the clinicians' choice. Participants in the survey were 341 lay people without cancer, 200 patients with cancer and 200 oncologists from cancer centres throughout the UK. It was difficult to identify 'the best' way to describe the process of randomisation. The two most favoured statements for patients and members of the public included a very explicit statement that mentioned 'a computer', 'chance' and 'not the doctor's or patient's decision' and a succinct statement that played down the role of 'chance'. Clinicians chose neither of these statements as closely resembling their own practice. Patients and members of the public most disliked the statement 'a computer will perform the equivalent of tossing a coin to allocate you to one of two methods of treatment'. This analogy used by 26% of oncologists, was viewed as trivialising and upsetting in the context of determining treatment for life threatening disease.

Clinicians' attitudes towards clinical trials of cancer therapy

Background:

Patient accrual into cancer clinical trials remains at low levels. This survey elicited attitudes and practices of cancer clinicians towards clinical trials.

Method:

The 43-item Clinicians Attitudes to Clinical Trials Questionnaire was completed by participants in an intervention study aimed at improving multi-disciplinary involvement in randomised trials. Responses from 13 items were summed to form a research-orientation score.

Results:

Eighty-seven clinicians (78%) returned questionnaires. Physicians, more often than surgeons, chose to prioritise prolonging a patient's life, recruited ⩾50% of patients into trials and attended more research-focussed conferences. Clinicians at specialist centres were more positive about trials with no-treatment arms than those at district general hospitals, more likely to believe clinician, rather than patient reluctance to participate was the greater obstacle to trial accrual, and preferred national and international to local recognition. Clinicians belonging to breast and colorectal teams were less disappointed about not enrolling patients in trials and more accepting of no-treatment arm trials. Research orientation was higher in physicians than surgeons and higher in specialist centres than district hospitals.

Conclusions:

This study provides greater understanding of clinicians’ attitudes to trials. Results have been used to inform training interventions for clinicians targeting the problem of low and selective accrual.

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous trastuzumab and intravenous trastuzumab as part of adjuvant therapy for HER2-positive early breast cancer: Final analysis of the randomised, two-cohort PrefHer study

AIM

To assess efficacy (event-free survival, EFS) and safety in patients followed up for 3 years in the PrefHer study (NCT01401166).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Post surgery and post chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting, patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer were randomised to receive four cycles of the subcutaneous form of trastuzumab (Herceptin^® SC [H SC] via single-use injection device [Cohort 1] or delivery via a hand-held syringe from an SC Vial [Cohort 2]; 600 mg fixed dose) followed by four of the intravenous form of trastuzumab (Herceptin^® [H IV]; 8 mg/kg loading, 6 mg/kg maintenance doses) in the adjuvant setting or vice versa every 3 weeks. Patients could have received H before randomisation. H was then continued to complete a total of 18 cycles, including any cycles received before randomisation.

RESULTS

A total of 488 patients were randomised across both cohorts. After median follow-up of 36.1 months, 3-year EFS across both groups in the evaluable intention-to-treat population (467 patients) was 90.6% overall, 89.9% in Cohort 1, and 91.1% in Cohort 2. No new safety signals were identified during long-term follow-up, with only one cardiac serious adverse event in the safety population (483 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-year EFS data following H SC and H IV treatment are consistent with those reported by previous trials for H in the adjuvant setting. The overall safety profile during adjuvant treatment was as expected.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of the 5-HT(1B/1D) agonist eletriptan following intravenous and oral administration

Four separate studies were conducted to examine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of eletriptan, a 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonist being developed for the treatment of migraines, after oral and intravenous administration. Fifty-five males received oral (1.5-30 mg or 30-120 mg) or intravenous (1.67-50 microg/kg or 50-102 microg/kg) eletriptan in four double- and single-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose crossover studies. The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration curve (AUC) appeared linear over all dose ranges, with an apparent terminal half-life of 4 to 5 hours. Clearance and volume of distribution remained constant with dose. The time to first occurrence of Cmax (tmax) for oral eletriptan was approximately 1 hour and was unaffected by dose. Comparison of AUC values suggested an absolute bioavailability of approximately 50%. A linear PK/PD model, fitted to the data, predicted small, transient elevations in diastolic blood pressure following eletriptan doses > or = 60 mg. These effects were considered unlikely to be clinically significant. Eletriptan was well tolerated, and treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate and transient. These PK properties should result in eletriptan having a rapid onset and sustained duration of action in terms of migraine efficacy.

The effects of oestrogens and anti-oestrogens on cognition

Recent research suggests that oestrogen may play an important role in cognition. Epidemiological and experimental studies of hormone replacement therapy in post-menopausal women suggest that oestrogen may be important to verbal memory in particular, as well as other cognitive functions such as attention and processing speed. Some studies have also suggested that HRT may have a beneficial effect for Alzheimer's disease, both in the prevention or delay of onset and that it is also of therapeutic benefit to patients in whom the disease is established. The use of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and other hormonal therapies for the treatment of breast cancer is common, yet few studies have examined the possible cognitive effects of this form of treatment. Several studies have shown cognitive decline in women receiving treatment for breast cancer, but the focus has been on the effects of chemotherapy. Further confusion has resulted from the diverse methodologies used in the existing literature. A pilot study to develop a suitable cognitive battery of tests for the evaluation of cognitive function in women receiving hormonal therapy for the treatment or prevention of breast cancer is introduced.

Folic acid treatment of fragile X males: a further study

Investigations of the effect of high dose folic acid treatment of fragile X syndrome in males has produced mixed results. However, no study had examined the possible drug effects of folic acid on non-fragile X control males. Therefore, we examined the effect of folic acid on fragile X males using non-fragile X control males. Subjects were assigned randomly to an ABA or BAB design. Duration of either folic acid or placebo condition was 4 months. Folic acid or placebo was given in a double-blind fashion. At the end of each condition, the subjects' behavior was assessed. At the end of the study, parents were asked to complete a questionnaire. Using parents' responses, we examined 22 items on the Autistic Descriptors Checklist and two subscales from the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale which corresponded to areas of behavior parents' noted to have shown improvement. We did not find significant differences between fragile X males and control males, within subjects, nor across folic acid and placebo conditions. Thus, our follow-up study confirms and extends our original findings, as well as those of other researchers: namely, that no dramatic changes in behavior result from high dose folic acid. Moreover, subtle improvements observed in earlier investigations were not confirmed.

Utility of viscoelastography with TEG 6s to direct management of haemostasis during obstetric haemorrhage: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The TEG 6s is an automated cartridge-based device with limited description of use in obstetric haemorrhage. The aim of this analysis was to describe the utility of TEG 6s in identifying abnormal laboratory results of coagulation and platelet count, and inform an interventional treatment algorithm for postpartum haemorrhage.

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study of 521 women with moderate to severe obstetric haemorrhage (>1000 mL blood loss), including 372 women with at least one TEG 6s test. A non-pregnant control group was used for reference. TEG 6s test parameters Citrated Functional Fibrinogen (CFF), Citrated Kaolin TEG (CK) and Citrated Rapid TEG (CRT) were compared with paired laboratory tests of fibrinogen, PT/aPTT and platelet count, obtained during haemorrhage.

RESULTS

Among 456 TEG 6s tests, 389 were matched with laboratory coagulation results. The receiver operator characteristic area-under-the-curve (95% CI) for CFF amplitude by 10 min to detect Clauss fibrinogen ≤2 g/L was 0.95 (0.91 to 0.99) (P<0.0001, sensitivity 0.74 and specificity 0.97 at ≤17 mm). False positives had median (IQR) Clauss fibrinogen of 2.4 (2.3-2.7) g/L. The CK-R time had some utility for detecting prolonged PT/aPTT, however a threshold for fresh frozen plasma transfusion was not established. A CRT maximum amplitude <57 mm, when CFF was ≥15 mm, identified four of eight samples with platelet count <75 × 10⁹/L.

CONCLUSION

The TEG 6s CFF can be used to identify low fibrinogen during obstetric haemorrhage. A value to identify transfusion thresholds for PT/aPTT and platelets was not established, and laboratory results should continue to be used.